Johnson v. Mitchell et al

Filing 156

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/31/2012 VACATING the Motion Hearing on 2/16/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows, GRANTING IN PART 155 Motion th Continue, ORDERING Plaintiff to show cause in writing by 2/23/2012 as to why Defendants Arosemena, Berrocal, Reinhold, Smith, Fine, Parsons and Solarte Inn Corporation should not be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. 41(b). (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHEPARD JOHNSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-10-1968 GEB GGH PS

vs.
CHESTER MITCHELL, et al.,
ORDER

14
Defendants.
15
16

/

17

On January 30, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion “for continuance from February 16,

18

2012 to February 23, 2012 of one of the three items scheduled to be filed by plaintiff on February

19

16, 2012 per court order dated January 27, 2012.” (Dkt. No. 155.) Plaintiff has noticed this

20

motion for hearing on February 16, 2012 before the undersigned. (Id.) The court notes that the

21

motion was not timely noticed per E.D. Cal. L.R. 230 and is not accompanied by a request for an

22

order shortening time pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 144. Nevertheless, after reviewing the papers in

23

support of the motion, the court concludes that further briefing or oral argument would not be of

24

material assistance in resolving the motion. Accordingly, the February 16, 2012 hearing date on

25

the instant motion will be vacated.

26

\\\\\
1

1

Plaintiff does not indicate a preference as to which of the three “items” due

2

February 16, 2012 should be continued. Therefore, plaintiff will be given an additional seven (7)

3

days until February 23, 2012 to show cause in writing why defendants Rogelio Arosemena,

4

Manuel Berrocal, Peter Reinhold, Maurine E. Smith, Susan Fine, Kim Parsons, and Solarte Inn

5

Corporation should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff’s failure to

6

prosecute and follow court orders regarding service of process. All other deadlines in the court’s

7

January 27, 2012 order (dkt. no. 154) will remain unchanged.

8
9

Plaintiff also requests that he be granted until March 1, 2012 or later to respond to
a potential summary judgment motion by some defendants. However, no such motion has yet

10

been filed, and the court does not plan to entertain substantive dispositive motions until

11

jurisdictional issues have been resolved. Therefore, this request is premature.

12

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1. The February 16, 2012 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to continue (dkt. no. 155)

14

is vacated.

15

2. Plaintiff’s motion to continue (dkt. no. 155) is granted in part.

16

3. No later than February 23, 2012, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why

17

defendants Rogelio Arosemena, Manuel Berrocal, Peter Reinhold, Maurine E. Smith, Susan

18

Fine, Kim Parsons, and Solarte Inn Corporation should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

19

P. 41(b) for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and follow court orders.

20

4. All other deadlines in the court’s January 27, 2012 order (dkt. no. 154) remain

21

unchanged.

22

DATED: January 31, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24

GGH/wvr
Johnson.1968.cont.wpd

25
26
2